anything of it or after it. If it was all before the redemption, the blood-money for all of them attaches to her person, and there is nothing upon him regarding all of them except her value, or the blood-money for all of them, and he is liable for the lesser of the two. The victims share in what is due to them; if her value suffices, it is paid, otherwise they divide it among themselves according to the proportion of their respective blood-monies. If the second offense occurred after he had redeemed her from the first, then he is liable for her redemption for what occurred after it, just as he redeemed the first. Abu al-Khattab reported from Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, a second opinion: If he redeems her with her value once, her redemption is no longer binding upon him after that; because she is a perpetrator (of an offense), so no more than her value is binding upon him, just as if he had not redeemed her. Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, said in one of his two views: He is not liable for her a second time, and the second victim shares with the first in what he took, just as if the offenses had been before her redemption. Our position is that she is an umm al-walad who has committed an offense, so her redemption is binding upon him, like the first, and because what the first took is compensation for his offense, which he took by right, so it is not permissible for another to share in it with him, just like the blood-money for an offense committed by a free person or an ordinary slave. This differs from the case before redemption, because the blood-money for the offenses attached to her person at one time, so more than one value was not binding upon the master, as if the offenses were against one person.

Section: If some of them waive their right, the obligation becomes fully due to the remainder, if all of the offenses were before the redemption. If the offense that was pardoned was after his redemption, its blood-money falls fully upon her master. And Allah knows best.

2023 - Issue; He said: "A man's bequest to his umm al-walad and appointing her as executor is valid."

As for the bequest to her, we have already mentioned it. As for appointing her as executor, it is valid, because she is free at the time the bequest takes effect, so she resembles his wife or other women. The same conditions are required for the validity of appointing her as executor as are required for others, such as integrity, sanity, and other conditions. It is the same whether the bequest concerns her children or others, or if he appoints her to distribute his third, or pay his debt, or execute his will, or other than that.